Red Sea to Hormuz: Why Strategic Overreach, Airpower and Paper Pacts are Failing against Geography?

West Asia’s Dual Chokehold: Saudi Arabia’s Red Sea debacle, the Mecca Pact and Iran’s Hormuz Leverage!

“From the Red Sea to the Strait of Hormuz, West Asia is exposing the limitations of military coercion when geography favours the adversary, alliances remain politically conditional, and military action proceeds without a credible end state or exit strategy”.

Introduction

West Asia’s expanding conflict is no longer confined to individual battlefields. The confrontation involving the United States and Iran, renewed Saudi–Houthi hostilities, the vulnerability of maritime chokepoints and the uncertain credibility of collective-defence arrangements are increasingly interconnected.

In this strategic assessment, Major General Dr S B Asthana examines why superior standoff firepower may fail to deliver decisive political outcomes, why the Mecca Pact faces difficult operational and political tests, and why the Strait of Hormuz cannot be secured through airpower alone. The analysis also explores the implications for global energy security and India’s strategic choices. Greater emphasis on Saudi Arabia- Houthi confrontation and Pacts/Alliances is evident as US- Iran issues have been emphasised more in my earlier articles referred in the post.

The central question is not simply who possesses greater firepower, but who can translate military action into a sustainable political end state.

Read full text below:-

West Asia’s Dual Chokehold: Strategic Overreach, Paper Pacts and the Limits of Standoff Warfare

“From Red Sea to Strait of Hormuz, Standoff  Attacks, fragile alliances have proved inadequate to overcome terrain friction and geographical disadvantages. Air Assaults without thinking through an “End State” and “Exit Strategy”  buys only escalation, Not conflict termination”.

Introduction

West Asia is no longer a set of separate wars. The US–Iran confrontation, the Houthi campaign against Saudi Arabia and the contest for the Red Sea and Gulf sea lanes now feed one another. Yet the responses on offer remain familiar: standoff firepower, hurried alliances and the hope that coercion will somehow yield a settlement. This article argues that all three are failing against the same adversary, geography. It examines how the latest Saudi–Houthi escalation began, why the Mecca Pact has stalled at its first test, why Hormuz cannot be cleared from the air, and what a workable way forward might look like.

The Strategic Backdrop: Geography, Friction, and Military Math

War is governed by political and strategic aims, logistical sustainment and, above all, the friction of terrain. Standoff bombardment degrades exposed military and civilian infrastructure, but it rarely coerces an entrenched, ideologically resilient adversary into capitulation. Today the energy architecture linking the Persian Gulf, the Arabian Sea and the Red Sea is caught in a dual vise: the Strait of Hormuz in the east and Bab el-Mandeb in the southwest. Between them lies an exposed Arabian Peninsula whose Vision 2030 depends on open sea lanes and unmolested infrastructure. Instead, Riyadh’s airports, refineries and pipelines are taking direct hits, and billions of dollars in precision munitions have not restored deterrence.

The Ground Truth of Saudi-Houthi Clashes: Who Triggered the Current Escalation? The roots lie in 2014–15, when the Iran-aligned Houthis (Ansar Allah) seized Sana’a and Riyadh led a coalition to stop a hostile force consolidating along its 1,300-km southern border. A UN-brokered truce in 2022 sharply reduced cross-border fighting, but produced neither a political settlement nor a reunified Yemeni state. The UN recognised Presidential Leadership Council’s (PLC) legitimacy and administrative capacity are weak, and Saudi–UAE rivalry over the STC fragments the recognised-government camp. A fractured Yemen is being controlled by multiple factions as shown in the image below.

Western media often portrays the renewed Houthi strikes on Riyadh, Khamis Mushait and Dammam as unprovoked aggression. The operational sequence says otherwise. The Houthis had shown restraint towards Saudi territory since the truce. The flare-up began on 13 July, when Saudi-backed government forces struck the Sana’a airport runway to stop an Iranian aircraft carrying Houthi leaders home from the late Supreme Leader’s funeral; the aircraft diverted to Hodeidah. Riyadh evidently judged that a strained Iran would not retaliate, and that forces could retake Taiz and the coast.

It was the mistake America has repeatedly made: underplaying the geographical advantage of the adversary, and starting a confrontation without an exit strategy or a clear end state. The response was swift and asymmetric:

1. The asymmetric counteroffensive. Ballistic missile salvos and drone swarms saturated Saudi air defences rather than engaging along the mountainous border.
2. A maritime chokehold. The Houthis seized coastal islands and threatened tankers at Bab el-Mandeb, while Iraqi militias degraded the East-West pipeline bypass, cornering Saudi crude exports.
3. The interceptor deficit. Air defence is an economic losing game: multi-million-dollar Patriot PAC-3 interceptors against $20,000 loitering drones. Stocks already depleted in earlier rounds will, the Pentagon concedes, take years to replenish.

Riyadh’s Yemeni partners cannot carry the burden. The Presidential Leadership Council has limited administrative reach, and Saudi–UAE rivalry over the Southern Transitional Council fractures the anti-Houthi camp. Facing it are Houthis hardened by years of operational experience and sustained by Iranian missiles and drones.

The Mecca Pact & Collective Defence: Why Paper Alliances Fail Operational Tests

Signed in August 2026 and built on the 2025 Saudi–Pakistan defence agreement, the Mecca Pact was invoked by Riyadh at an emergency meeting on 5 October. The response was strategic evasion. Ankara ruled out ground forces in Yemen, limiting itself to intelligence sharing and air-defence advice inside Saudi borders. Islamabad offered solidarity, denied reports that its aircraft had struck Yemen, and refused offensive action against Houthi or Iranian interests. Why did the pact falter at its first test?

• The legalist escape hatch. The pact rests on the logic of collective self-defence, Article 51 of the UN Charter, echoing NATO’s Article 5. A defensive agreement does not compel partners to join offensives, and Saudi-aligned forces were the initiators of this cycle. Even Article 5 of NATO has limitations in case of unilateral offensive by one member, as was the case with lack of NATO’s support to America for unilateral action against Iran.
• National interest over coalition warfare. Pakistan shares a volatile border with Iran, is stretched by Baluchistan, is involved with military actions on Afghan borders and marred with internal strife.  Turkey, balancing Syria, Israel and NATO, will not spend blood in Yemen’s mountains.
• No command infrastructure. NATO has decades of integrated command and doctrine. Declaratory pacts remain paper fortresses; when friction arrives, political imperatives overwrite treaty ink.
• Thin backing elsewhere. Europe and Egypt offered assurances only once the Suez Canal was affected, and for economic reasons. Washington is over-committed, and hesitant, particularly after the unpleasant experience of bombing the Houthis in 2025.

Riyadh thus overestimated both the Pact and its patrons. There is a deeper hazard: an alliance built for deterrence can become a mechanism of entrapment, drawing members into a war they neither started nor can end. A credible pact must define what its members will avoid, as well as what they will defend. Its early focus should be defensive: early warning, counter-drone and missile defence, maritime surveillance.

The Strait of Hormuz Asymmetry: Why Standoff Fires Cannot Clear Maritime Chokepoints

The Red Sea crisis cannot be decoupled from Hormuz. America and Israel have caused significant damage to military assets and civilian infrastructure of Iran, which was exposed to air attacks but had limited impact on assets located in tunnels. Installations using folds of ground in mountainous terrain had little impact of Air campaign. Hormuz is a constrained waterway, where deep-draft tankers are funnelled through two narrow channels near Larak Island, Hormuz Island and the Musandam Peninsula. Iran holds an insurmountable geographic advantage:

• The ratio of effort. One shore-launched anti-ship missile, a dispersed minefield or intermittent fast-attack craft sorties from its fortified Gulf islands can spike insurance rates and halt traffic. Iran needs no blue-water navy.
• No denial without ground occupation. Guaranteeing free navigation would mean seizing and garrisoning the Iranian islands, Abu Musa and Kharg among them, and neutralising a coastline honeycombed with missile tunnels. The force level mustered by USA currently is inadequate for any meaningful ground operation.
• Capital-ship vulnerability. Pushing billion-dollar platforms into shallow, confined waters would expose them to shore batteries, hypersonic missiles and drone swarms. Carrier groups therefore stay hundreds of miles away in the Arabian Sea, unable to break Tehran’s local sea denial.

The US-Iran Impasse: The JCPOA-Plus Dilemma and Washington’s Depleted Arsenals

The military stalemate mirrors a diplomatic one. The war that began with US–Israeli strikes on 28 February 2026 saw an interim June ceasefire collapse. Washington entered with maximalist aims: regime transformation, elimination of enrichment and dismantling of the “Axis of Resistance”. Tehran’s aim was regime survival and imposing unsustainable costs. Judged against those aims, Tehran has withstood the air campaign: the regime stands, its deep nuclear facilities survive beneath hardened mountains, and its proxies still shape events. It feels no compulsion to capitulate as Washington seeks an off-ramp before election season.

Iran’s conditions for reopening Hormuz, which carried roughly a fifth of global oil and LNG trade before the war, are stiff: verifiable cessation of hostilities on all fronts, including Gaza and Lebanon, which Prime Minister Netanyahu rejects; lifting of the blockade; unfreezing of assets; sanctions relief; and recognition of its regulatory rights over Strait transit.

Herein lies the trap. President Trump abandoned the 2015 JCPOA as insufficient; signing a deal that merely restores pre-war enrichment baselines, without curbing missiles or proxies, would be a domestic political defeat. Washington needs a JCPOA-Plus. Iran, holding the chokepoints, will not offer even baseline concessions without relief up front.

Strategic Conclusions: What Next for West Asia and Global Energy Security?

West Asia cannot bomb its way out. Standoff precision warfare has reached its culminating point, and ground campaigns across hostile mountain terrain are non-starters for American voters, NATO allies and regional monarchs alike.

First, Washington and Tehran must discard maximalism and phase face-saving steps: verifiable maritime de-escalation and eased interdiction first, with sanctions, nuclear limits and monitoring in later stages.

Second, Riyadh must abandon the illusion of external salvation. Its security lies in coercive diplomacy, using military leverage to improve the terms of talks through Oman and the UN, with direct engagement with Sana’a and Tehran. Yemenis themselves want an end to the war; in one Sanaa Centre survey, 76 per cent feared escalation would hinder peace. A settlement must be Yemeni-owned.

Third, India and Asia’s other importers must treat this as a catalyst. New Delhi should use its balanced ties with Tehran, Riyadh and the GCC to build a multilateral maritime framework, diversify energy sources and maintain forward naval deployments to secure its sea lines of communication.

Conclusion

Standoff attacks can’t win wars. Defence Agreements/Pacts can give confidence for deterring the aggressor, but they neither give the liberty for unwarranted adventurism, nor can ensure regional peace.

Peace needs an end state that adversaries may not prefer, yet can accept as cheaper than continued conflict. Until regional powers accept that geography cannot be defeated by airpower alone, West Asia will remain trapped in an escalatory cycle in which everyone fights, paper alliances falter and the global economy pays the price.

The world is waiting for such realisation of reality by the parties to the conflict or the situation becoming cost prohibitive for them, besides suffering economic and energy crisis for none of its fault. 

About the Author

Major General (Dr) S B Asthana, SM, VSM, PhD (Veteran)

The views expressed are the personal views of the author, who retains copyright. The author is a globally acknowledged strategic and security analyst, and former Director General of Infantry, Indian Army, and former Director at the United Service Institution of India. A prolific strategic-affairs commentator with over 600 published works and more than 5,000 global TV appearances, he writes on geopolitics, military doctrine and Indian defence policy.

asthanawrites.org   |   LinkedIn   |   YouTube: @GenAsthanaAnalyses